4.5 Article

Analysis of the diagnostic capabilities of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and serum procalcitonin for acute kidney injury at the early stage of critical care intensive care unit admission

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23852

关键词

acute kidney Injury; NGAL; pancreatitis; procalcitonin; sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that U-NGAL and PCT can be used as biomarkers for the early diagnosis of AKI in ICU patients, with high accuracy in predicting and diagnosing AKI stage 3.
Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a disease that negatively affects patient prognosis and requires early diagnosis and treatment. Biomarkers that predict AKI are needed for early diagnosis of this disease. Methods We compared the AKI group and the non-AKI group in patients who were admitted to our critical care intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted a comparative study focusing on urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (U-NGAL) and serum procalcitonin (PCT). Results Seventy-one out of 106 ICU inpatients were diagnosed with AKI in accordance with the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. Among the patients who were diagnosed with AKI stages 1 to 3, 94.4% of all patients reached the maximum stage by day 5 after admission. Comparing the non-AKI group and AKI stage 1 to 3 on days 1 to 3 after admission, U-NGAL and PCT levels in the stage 3 group were significantly higher than those in the non-AKI group. Additionally, in receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis on days 1-3 after admission, U-NGAL and PCT levels can be used as biomarkers for the diagnosis of AKI, and in particular, AKI stage 3 can be predicted and diagnosed with high accuracy. U-NGAL and PCT levels were also significantly higher in AKI due to sepsis and acute pancreatitis and due to sepsis, respectively. Conclusions Measuring U-NGAL and PCT levels as biomarkers for AKI may further improve the accuracy of AKI diagnosis in critical care ICU.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据